It is commonplace to accuse the leadership of the feminist
movement of being white, middle-class, academic boomers who have
lost touch with the realities of the average woman. I think the
situation is far worse. I believe that most feminist policies
harm the very women they should be protecting -- that is, the
pink-collar worker. I believe the solutions they offer to poor
women are part of what is creating their poverty.

In the sea of elitism that is the feminism movement,
journalist Barbara Ehrenreich appears to be an exception. Her
roots are working class, which is a rarity. And she speaks out
against "middle-class feminism" -- the sort of socialist
feminist who hires a maid to clean up after her.

Ehrenreich's most recent book (Spring 2001), "Nickel and
Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in Boom-time America," chronicles a
fascinating experiment. She worked for two years in menial jobs
-- as a maid, a store clerk and a waitress -- in order to
collect material on how difficult it is for a working class
woman to feed her children in America today. She eloquently
describes the difficult choices confronting pink-collar workers.
For example, do you take public transportation to work or eat
lunch? -- because there is not enough money to do both.

Ehrenreich views the working poor as victims of social
injustice inflicted by businesses who violate the dignity and
civil liberties of workers. She believes poor women deserve to
have the welfare system expanded and rendered more friendly when
key legislation is up for review in 2002. Welfare programs based
on moving recipients off the rolls and into the workplace
attract particular scorn. Indeed, "Nickel and Dimed" was
inspired by the fact that millions of women are now being
"forced" into the workplace by such programs. Clearly, her
purpose was to debunk the idea that getting a low-paid job could
such women to a better life.

Like Ehrenreich, I come from the working class. My father had
a sixth-grade education and made a living with his hands. My
mother, with a high school degree, was considered to be an
educated woman by a family that had no college credentials. Like
Ehrenreich, I think the working poor are victims of social
injustice, but I say the free market is not the culprit and
government is not the cure.

In her book, Ehrenreich claims repeatedly that the poor
cannot get ahead through hard work and initiative. I agree. And
I also appeal to government. It should do the one thing in its
power to remedy the situation: get out of people's way.

Eliminate the regulations that prevent women from
establishing cottage industries in their own homes. For example,
in California, a woman must have 1,600 hours of state-approved
training at a cost of between $5,000 and $7,000 before she can
legally offer her services as a hair-braider. As a result, most
hair-braiders operate outside the law. Being "illegal," however,
means that their businesses cannot grow because they cannot
pursue standard business practices, like advertising and
applying for a bank loan.

Remove the laws that keep women from making a living outside
the home. For example, in New York City, the cost of the license
to own and operate one taxi can be as much as $160,000 due to a
scarcity engineered by government. Moreover, used cars can no
longer be brought into service as cabs. As a result, women are
prevented from using what might be their only assets -- their
time and the family car -- to feed their children.

Get rid of the costs imposed by social planners that make
businesses in North America less profitable and less able to
create jobs. For example, sweep away laws against sexual
harassment if it does not involve physical abuse. The billions
of dollars spent by businesses each year on sensitivity
trainers, legal advice, and lawsuits has spawned what Daphne
Patai in her book "Heterophobia" calls SHI -- the Sexual
Harassment Industry. The SHI represents a massive transfer of
wealth away from businesses' productivity into the pockets of
social engineers and attorneys. It is impossible to know how
many jobs do not exist because of this hidden tax imposed by
political correctness.

Yet feminists never seem to call for less government
regulation, especially in the work place. Even Ehrenreich, with
her blue-collar background, doesn't seem to realize that it was
because her parents were allowed to work that they were able to
give her a better life. They were allowed to translate their
energy, initiative and work ethic into productive labor. It was
precisely because they were blue-collar that they needed every
economic opportunity, every door to labor open to them.

And, yet, after working as a cleaning woman during research
for her book, Ehrenreich issued an appeal to the readers of
Harper's (April 2000) not to hire maids. She wrote, "Almost
everyone complains about violent video games, but paid
housecleaning has the same consequence-abolishing effect. ...A
servant economy breeds callousness..." And, so, to protect the
moral sensibilities of the middle-class, she asks them to
unemploy poor women who are working to feed their children.
Instead of honest work she would offer these women a more humane
welfare system.

Today, government is slamming the door on anyone who cannot
afford to shell out for the avalanche of applications, licenses,
permits, taxes, and other fees that most business ventures
require. Poor women should not have to go on welfare because all
other economic avenues have been blocked.

Earning a living should not be a privilege granted by
government: it is a right.